Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 159577 May 3, 2006
CHARLITO PEARANDA, Petitioner,
vs.
AGANGA PL!"OOD CORPORATION a#$ HUDSON CHUA,
Managerial eplo!ees an" ebers of the anagerial staff are e#epte" fro the provisions of the $abor %o"e on labor stan"ar"s.
Since petitioner belongs to this class of eplo!ees, he is not entitle" to overtie pa! an" preiu pa! for &or'ing on rest "a!s.
The %ase
%&o'% () *) a P%+*+*o# &o' R%,*%-
1
(#$%' R(.% /5 o& +0% R(.%) o& Co('+, a))a*.*#1 +0% 2a#(a'y 27, 2003
2
a#$ 2(.y /,
2003
3
R%)o.(+*o#) o& +0% Co('+ o& A33%a.) 4CA5 *# CA6GR SP No. 7/357. T0% %a'.*%' R%)o.(+*o# $*)3o)%$ a) &o..o-)8
9"HERE:ORE, 3'%;*)%) <o#)*$%'%$, +0% *#)+a#+ 3%+*+*o# *) 0%'%=y DISMISSED.9
/
T0% .a++%' R%)o.(+*o# $%#*%$ '%<o#)*$%'a+*o#.
O# +0% o+0%' 0a#$, +0% D%<*)*o# o& +0% Na+*o#a. La=o' R%.a+*o#) Co;;*))*o# 4NLRC5 <0a..%#1%$ *# +0% CA $*)3o)%$ a) &o..o-)8
9"HERE:ORE, 3'%;*)%) <o#)*$%'%$, +0% $%<*)*o# o& +0% La=o' A'=*+%' =%.o- a-a'$*#1 o,%'+*;% 3ay a#$ 3'%;*(; 3ay &o' '%)+
$ay +o <o;3.a*#a#+ *) 0%'%=y RE>ERSED a#$ SET ASIDE, a#$ +0% <o;3.a*#+ *# +0% a=o,%6%#+*+.%$ <a)% $*);*))%$ &o' .a<? o&
;%'*+.
(
The Facts
Soetie in )une *+++, Petitioner %harlito Pe,aran"a &as hire" as an eplo!ee of -aganga Pl!&oo" %orporation .-P%/ to ta'e charge
of the operations an" aintenance of its stea plant boiler.
0
In Ma! 122*, Pe,aran"a file" a %oplaint for illegal "isissal &ith one!
clais against -P% an" its general anager, 3u"son %hua, before the N$R%.
4
The respon"ent 5-P%6 &as on teporar! closure "ue to repair an" general aintenance an" it applie" for clearance &ith the Departent
of $abor an" 7plo!ent to shut "o&n an" to "isiss eplo!ees 8n" "ue to the insistence of herein coplainant he &as pai" his
separation benefits. %onse9uentl!, &hen respon"ent 5-P%6 partiall! reopene" in )anuar! 122*, 5Pe,aran"a6 faile" to reappl!. 3ence, he
&as not terinate" fro eplo!ent uch less illegall!. 3e opte" to severe eplo!ent &hen he insiste" pa!ent of his separation
benefits. Furtherore, being a anagerial eplo!ee he is not entitle" to overtie pa! an" if ever he ren"ere" services be!on" the noral
hours of &or', 5there6 &as no office or"er:or authori;ation for hi to "o so. Finall!, respon"ents allege that the clai for "aages has no
legal an" factual basis an" that the instant coplaint ust necessaril! fail for lac' of erit.<
*2
The labor arbiter rule" that there &as no illegal "isissal an" that petitioner=s %oplaint &as preature because he &as still eplo!e"
b! -P%.
Nevertheless, the labor arbiter foun" petitioner entitle" to overtie pa!, preiu pa! for &or'ing on rest "a!s, an" attorne!=s fees in the
total aount of P1*,1(4.+>.
*?
Ruling of the N$R%
Respon"ents file" an appeal to the N$R%, &hich "elete" the a&ar" of overtie pa! an" preiu pa! for &or'ing on rest "a!s.
8ccor"ing to the %oission, he &as a anagerial eplo!ee.
*@
Ruling of the %ourt of 8ppeals
the %8 "isisse" Pe,aran"a=s Petition for %ertiorari. The appellate court hel" that he faile" toA */ attach copies of the plea"ings
subitte" before the labor arbiter an" N$R%B an" 1/ e#plain &h! the filing an" service of the Petition &as not "one b! personal
service.
*(
the %8 "enie" reconsi"eration on the groun" that petitioner still faile" to subit the plea"ings file" before the N$R%.
*0
3ence this Petition.
*4
The %8 "isisse" Pe,aran"a=s Petition on purel! technical groun"s, particularl! &ith regar" to the failure to subit supporting
"ocuents.
7vi"entl!, the %8 coul" have rule" on the Petition on the basis of these attachents. Petitioner shoul" be "eee" in substantial
copliance &ith the proce"ural re9uireents.
Cn"er these e#tenuating circustances, the %ourt "oes not hesitate to grant liberalit! in favor of petitioner an" to tac'le his substantive
arguents in the present case. Rules of proce"ure ust be a"opte" to help proote, not frustrate, substantial Dustice.
1?
The %ourt fro&ns
upon the practice of "isissing cases purel! on proce"ural groun"s.
1@
%onsi"ering that there &as substantial copliance,
1(
a liberal
interpretation of proce"ural rules in this labor case is ore in 'eeping &ith the constitutional an"ate to secure social Dustice.
10
First IssueA
Tieliness of 8ppeal
Cn"er the Rules of Proce"ure of the N$R%, an appeal fro the "ecision of the labor arbiter shoul" be file" &ithin *2 "a!s fro receipt
thereof.
14
Thus, this %ourt has no eans to "eterine fro the recor"s &hen the *2E"a! perio" coence" an" terinate"
Nature of 7plo!ent
petitioner &as a eber of the anagerial staff, &hich also ta'es hi out of the coverage of labor stan"ar"s. $i'e anagerial
eplo!ees, officers an" ebers of the anagerial staff are not entitle" to the provisions of la& on labor stan"ar"s.
?1
The Ipleenting
Rules of the $abor %o"e "efine ebers of a anagerial staff as those &ith the follo&ing "uties an" responsibilitiesA
<.*/ The priar! "ut! consists of the perforance of &or' "irectl! relate" to anageent policies of the eplo!erB
<.1/ %ustoaril! an" regularl! e#ercise "iscretion an" in"epen"ent Du"gentB
<.?/ .i/ Regularl! an" "irectl! assist a proprietor or a anagerial eplo!ee &hose priar! "ut! consists of the anageent of
the establishent in &hich he is eplo!e" or sub"ivision thereofB or .ii/ e#ecute un"er general supervision &or' along
speciali;e" or technical lines re9uiring special training, e#perience, or 'no&le"geB or .iii/ e#ecute un"er general supervision
special assignents an" tas'sB an"
<.@/ &ho "o not "evote ore than 12 percent of their hours &or'e" in a &or'&ee' to activities &hich are not "irectl! an"
closel! relate" to the perforance of the &or' "escribe" in paragraphs .*/, .1/, an" .?/ above.<
??
Petitioner=s evi"ence also sho&e" that he &as the supervisor of the stea plant.
?>
3is classification as supervisor is further evi"ent fro
the anner his salar! &as pai". 3e belonge" to the *2F of respon"ent=s ?(@ eplo!ees &ho &ere pai" on a onthl! basisB the others
&ere pai" onl! on a "ail! basis.
?+
On the basis of the foregoing, the %ourt fin"s no Dustification to a&ar" overtie pa! an" preiu pa! for rest "a!s to petitioner.
G37R7FOR7, the Petition is D7NI7D. %osts against petitioner.
SO ORD7R7D.
ARTEMIO >. PANGANIAN
%hief )ustice
%hairan, First Division
G7 %ON%CRA
T3IRD DIVISION
@G.R. No.151370. D%<%;=%' /, 2002A
ASIA PACI:IC CHARTERING 4PHILS.5 INC., petitioner, vs. MARIA LINDA R. :AROLAN, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
Petitioner 8sia Pacific %hartering .Phils/ Inc. &as, until *++0, the general sales agent .HS8/ of the Scan"inavian 8irline S!ste
.S8S/, an offEline international airline copan! &ith license to "o business in the Philippines. 8s HS8, petitioner sol" passenger an"
cargo spaces for airlines operate" b! S8S.
Soon after respon"ent assue" her post, she participate" in a nuber of eetings:seinars
5@6
inclu"ing a %ustoer Service
Seinar in -ang'o', Thailan", a Regional Sales Meeting on the technical aspects of airline coercial operations in Februar! *++?,
an" a course on the highl! technical airline coputer reservations s!ste calle" I8a"eusJ, all geare" to&ar"s iproving her
ar'eting an" sales s'ills. S8S= sales revenues &hich to her &as attributable to ar'et forces be!on" her control.petitioner "irecte" its
high ran'ing officer Roberto Ko;obra"o in )anuar! *++@ to con"uct an investigation on the atter an" i"entif! the proble:s an"
ipleent possible solutions. Ko;obra"o thus inforall! too' over soe of respon"ent=s ar'eting an" sales responsibilities, albeit
respon"ent retaine" her title as Sales Manager an" continue" to receive her salar! as such., Heneral Manager assess the statistics on S8S=
sales revenues an" S8S &as convince" that respon"ent &as not fit for the Dob of Sales ManagerB an" in vie& of the changes intro"uce"
b! Ko;obra"o, S8SEHS8 sales operations "re& positive results.
On Ma! 1*, *++@, respon"ent receive" a essage
506
fro )espersen rea"ingA
IDear $in"a an" -ob 5Ko;obra"o6,
First of all congratulation to !our sale result in 8pril. Lou reache" an" e#cee"e" the target b! (2F In %:class .FantasticMMM/ an" *F In
M:class. This is the secon" onth in a ro& .an" the last 1 first in ore than a !ear/ an" hopefull! the beginning of a ne& an" positive
tren".
On )ul! *>, *++@,
546
respon"ent receive" another essage fro )espersen rea"ingA
IDear $in"a,
The sales report for )une *++@ "i" unfortunatel! not reach target in %:class but in M:class !ou anage" ver! &ell. Totall! +F belo&
target.
The pre boo'ings eff. *@ )ul! loo's ver! goo" an" encouraging an" &ith 1 &ee's to go )ul! shoul" not be a proble. .enclose"/
Please sen" ! regar"s to all the girls an" tell the to 'eep up the goo" &or'.
# # #
On even "ate, ho&ever, petitioner sent respon"ent a letter of terination
5>6
on the groun" of Iloss of confi"ence.J The letter rea"sA
IThis confirs our .N-ob= Ko;obra"o an" !self/ )ul! @, *++@ verbal a"vice to !ou regar"ing Manageent=s "ecision to terinate !our
Services as our HS8 Manager for S%8NDIN8VI8N 8IR$IN7S SLST7M=s Offline Operations in the Philippines, thirt! .?2/ "a!s upon
receipt of this Notice, "ue to our .o)) o& <o#&*$%#<% in !our Managerial an" Mar'eting capabilities.
The $abor 8rbiter, after a "etaile" anal!sis of the evi"ence for both parties, foun" for respon"ent upon the follo&ing issuesA
*. Ghether or not coplainant &as vali"l! terinate" for causeB
1. Ghether or not "ue process &as observe" &hen coplainant &as terinate"B an"
?. Ghether or not an! of the parties are entitle" to "aages,
an" "ispose" in his "ecision
5**6
as follo&sA
IG37R7FOR7, fin"ing the "isissal of the coplainant Ms $in"a Farolan to be &ithout Dust cause, effecte" &ith alice, ill &ill an"
ba" faith, respon"ent 8sian Pacific %hartering Philippine, Inc. is hereb! or"ere" to pa! her separation paL an" oral "aages
On appeal, the N$R% reverse" the $abor 8rbiter=s "ecision, it recogni;ing the right of petitioner as eplo!er to terinate or
"isiss eplo!ees base" on loss of trust an" confi"ence, the right being a anageent prerogative.
Respon"ent=s Motion for Reconsi"eration of the N$R% Decision having been "enie", she brought her case to the %ourt of 8ppeals
via %ertiorari.
5*?6
-! Decision of )une 1>, 122*,
5*@6
the %ourt of 8ppeals, , the a&ar" for noinal "aages is "elete" for lac' of
basis.J .Cn"erscoring supplie"/.
Petitioner file" a otion for reconsi"eration
5*(6
of the %ourt of 8ppeals "ecision but it &as "enie", hence, the present P%+*+*o# &o' R%,*%-
o# C%'+*o'a'*
5*06
anchore" on the follo&ing groun"sA
The issue in the ain is &hether or not respon"ent=s "isissal &as legal.
re9uisites for a vali" "isissal of an eplo!ee is thus in or"er, to &itA .a/ the eplo!ee ust be affor"e" "ue process, i.e., he ust
be given opportunit! to be hear" an" to "efen" hiselfB an" .b/ "isissal ust be for a vali" cause as provi"e" in 8rticle 1>1 of the
$abor %o"e or an! of the authori;e" causes
I-efore one a! be properl! consi"ere" a anagerial eplo!ee, a.. the follo&ing con"itions ;()+ be etA
.*/ Their priar! "ut! consists of the anageent of the establishent in &hich the! are eplo!e" or of a "epartent or sub"ivision
thereofB
.1/ The! custoaril! an" regularl! "irect the &or' of t&o or ore eplo!ees thereinB
.?/ The! have the authorit! to hire or fire other eplo!ees of lo&er ran'B or their suggestions an" recoen"ations as to the hiring an"
firing an" as to the prootion or an! other change of status of other eplo!ees are given particular &eight. 4S%<+*o# 24=5, R(.% I, oo?
III o& +0% O;#*=() R(.%)
, a fraction of si# .0/ onths to be consi"ere" a !ear.
8s regar"s the a&ar" to respon"ent of oral an" e#eplar! "aages, petitioner assails it in this &iseA IThe a&ar" of "aages in
so far as the sae &as base" solel! on respon"ent=s affi"avit containing general an" uncorroborate" stateent that she suffere" "aages
as a result of her terination is null an" voi" 5it being6 insufficient to overcoe the presuption o goo" faith.J
The! nee" no aplification an":or corroboration. In"ee", petitioner &as "eprive" of "ue process an" "enie" Ibasic precepts of
fairnessJ &hen she &as terinate". 3er resultant sufferings thus entitle her to an a&ar" of oral "aages.
To &arrant a&ar" of oral "aages, it ust be sho&n that the "isissal of the eplo!ee &as atten"e" to b! ba" faith, or constitute" an
act opposite to labor, or &as "one in a anner contrar! to orals, goo" custos or public polic!.
5?*6
8&ar" of oral an" e#eplar! "aages for an illegall! "isisse" eplo!ee is proper &here the eplo!ee ha" been harasse" an"
arbitraril! terinate" b! the eplo!er.
?1
In "eterining the aount of oral "aages recoverable, ho&ever, the business, social an" financial position of the offen"e"
part! a#$ the business or financial position of the offen"er are ta'en into account.
??
Hiven petitioner=s business position or stan"ing
before an" at the tie of terination an" petitioner=s business an" financial position, this %ourt re"uces the aount of oral "aages
a&ar"e" to P(22,222.22 &hich it fin"s reasonable. The aount of e#eplar! "aages a&ar"e" is accor"ingl! re"uce" too
to P1(2,222.22.
"HERE:ORE, the "ecision of the %ourt of 8ppeals is hereb! 8FFIRM7D &ith the MODIFI%8TION that the aount of oral
"aages an" e#eplar! "aages a&ar"e" to respon"ent, Ma. $in"a R. Farolan, is hereb! re"uce" to Five 3un"re" Thousan"
.P(22,222.22/ Pesos an" T&o 3un"re" Fift! Thousan" .P1(2,222.22/ Pesos, respectivel!.
%osts against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, (Acting Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez an" Corona, JJ., concur.
Puno, (Chairman), J., on official leave.

FIRST DIVISION
@G.R. No. 121035. A3'*. 12, 2000A
RU:INO NORERTO :. SAMSON, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LAOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SCHERING6PLOUGH
CORPORATION, LEO RICONALLA a#$ 2OSE L. ESTINGOR, respondents.
*. On or about *4 Deceber *++?, "uring the Sales an" Mar'eting %hristas gathering, !ou a"e utterances of obscene, insulting, an"
offensive &or"s, referring to or "irecte" against SP%=s Manageent %oittee, in the presence of several coEeplo!ees.
1. On that sae occasion, an" again in the presence of several coEeplo!ees, !ou uttere" obscene, insulting an" offensive &or"s, an"
a"e alicious an" le&" gestures, all of &hich referre" to or &ere "irecte" against Mr. 7pitacio D. Titong, )r. Presi"ent an" Heneral
Manager of SP%.
?. 8lso on that sae occasion, !ou repeate" !our alicious utterances an" threatene" to "isrupt or other&ise create violence "uring
SP%=s forthcoing National Sales %onference, an" enDoine" !our coEeplo!ees not to prepare for the sai" conference.
@. Subse9uentl!, on or about ? )anuar! *++@, !ou repeate" !our threats to soe coEeplo!ees, a"vising the to &atch out for soe
"isruptive actions to happen "uring the National Sales %onference.
%oplainant &as given t&o .1/ "a!s fro receipt of the foregoing letter an" to %oplainant on the ver! sae "ate 1( )anuar! *++@ an"
in repl! to the aboveEentione" letter:eo &rote an e#planation statingA
Relative to the sai" eo I &oul" li'e to categoricall! state the follo&ing factsA
*. That the act.s/ allu"e" in the eo, specificall! paragraph5s6 * an" 1, &hich allege" that I uttere" obscene, insulting an" offensive
&or"s is not true. If ever I happene" to utter such &or"s it &as a"e in reference to the "ecision ta'en b! the anageent coittee on
the %ua $i case an" not to an! particular or specific person.s/ as state" in the eo.
1. I beg to "isagree &ith the stateent a"e in Paragraphs ? an" @ of the
sae eo as I "en! to have uttere" uch less threaten to create violence an" "isrupt the hol"ing of the
National Sales %onference.
Finall!, I a lo"ging a foral protest for being place" un"er preventive suspension it being contrar! to
the eo &hich gave e t&o .1/ "a!s &ithin &hich to e#plain ! position before an! "isciplinar!
action coul" be initiate". I believe that the preEepte" iposition of the preventive suspension is not onl!
arbitrar! but is violative of ! constitutional Oright to "ue processO.
Subitte" for !our inforation.
8gain, on )anuar! 14, *++@, coplainant &rote a letter a""resse" to Mr. ).$. 7stingor, 3RD Manager,
On the basis of the plea"ings file" b! the parties an" evi"ence on recor", the labor arbiter ren"ere" his Decision, "ate" 1( 8ugust *++@,
"eclaring the "isissal of petitioner illegal. The labor arbiter rule" that petitioner=s con"uct is not so serious as to &arrant his "isissal
becauseA */ the allege" offensive &or"s &ere uttere" "uring an inforal an" unofficial getEtogether of eplo!ees &here there &as social
"rin'ing an" petitioner &as alrea"! tips!B 1/ the &or"s &ere uttere" to sho& "isapproval over anageent=s "ecision on the <%ua $i<
caseB ?/ the penalt! for the offense is onl! <verbal rein"er< un"er respon"ent copan!=s rules an" regulationsB an" @/ petitioner &as
alrea"! a"onishe" "uring a eeting on @ )anuar! *++@. 8ccor"ingl!, respon"ent copan! &as or"ere" to reinstate petitioner as District
Sales Manager an" to pa! hi bac'&ages.
516
Petitioner file" a partial appeal of the "enial of his clai for holi"a! pa! an" the cash e9uivalent of the rice subsi"!. For its part,
respon"ent copan! sought the reversal of the "ecision of the labor arbiter alleging that the latter erre" in ruling that petitioner=s
eplo!ent &as terinate" &ithout vali" cause an" in or"ering his reinstateent.
In reversing the labor arbiter=s "ecision, the N$R% foun" that there &as Dust cause, i.e., gross iscon"uct, for petitioner=s "isissal.
.
Ge rule in favor of petitioner.
8ccor"ingl!, this %ourt ust of necessit! revie& the recor"s to "eterine &hich fin"ings shoul" be preferre" as ore conforable to the
evi"entiar! facts.
506
To constitute vali" "isissal, t&o .1/ re9uisites ust be etA .*/ the "isissal ust be for an! of the causes e#presse" in 8rticle 1>1 of
the $abor %o"eB an" .1/ the eplo!ee ust be given an opportunit! to be hear" an" "efen" hiself.
546
8rticle 1>1 of the $abor %o"e
provi"esA
A'+. 272. T%';*#a+*o# =y %;3.oy%'. P 8n eplo!er a! terinate an eplo!ent for an! of the follo&ing
causesA
a. Serious iscon"uct or &illful "isobe"ience b! the eplo!ee of the la&ful or"ers of his eplo!er or
representative in connection &ith his &or'B
b. Hross an" habitual neglect b! the eplo!ee of his "utiesB
c. Frau" or &illful breach b! the eplo!ee of the trust repose" in hi b! his eplo!er or "ul! authori;e"
representativeB
". %oission of a crie or offense b! the eplo!ee against the person of his eplo!er or an! ie"iate eber
of his fail! or his "ul! authori;e" representativeB an"
e. Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
Miscon"uct is iproper or &rong con"uct. It is the transgression of soe establishe" an" "efinite rule of action, a forbi""en act, a
"ereliction of "ut!, &illful in character, an" iplies &rongful intent an" not ere error in Du"gent. The iscon"uct to be serious ust
be of such grave an" aggravate" character an" not erel! trivial an" uniportant. Such iscon"uct, ho&ever serious, ust,
nevertheless, be in connection &ith the eplo!ee=s &or' to constitute Dust cause for his separation.
5+6
In this case, the allege" iscon"uct of petitioner, &hen vie&e" in its conte#t, is not of such serious an" grave character as to &arrant his
"isissal. First, petitioner a"e the allege" offensive utterances an" obscene gesture "uring an inforal %hristas gathering of
respon"ent copan!=s "istrict sales anagers an" ar'eting staff. The gathering &as Dust a casual getEtogether of eplo!ees..
7plo!ees shoul" be allo&e" &i"er latitu"e to freel! e#press their sentients "uring these 'in"s of occasions &hich are be!on" the
"isciplinar! authorit! of the eplo!er..
Secon", petitioner=s outburst &as in reaction to the "ecision of the anageent in the <%ua $i< case. The instant case shoul" be
"istinguishe" fro the previous cases &here &e hel" that the use of insulting an" offensive language constitute" gross iscon"uct
Dustif!ing an eplo!ee=s "isissal. In De la Cruz vs. !"C,
5*26
the "isisse" eplo!ee shoute" <sa#ang ang $ag%a-$ro&essional mo'<
an" <$utang ina mo< at the copan! ph!sician &hen the latter refuse" to give hi a referral slip. In 8utobus Gor'ers= Cnion .8GC/ vs.
N$R%,
5**6
the "isisse" eplo!ee calle" his supervisor <gago %a< an" taunte" the latter b! sa!ing <ba%it anong gusto mo, tang ina mo.<
In these cases, the "isisse" eplo!ees personall! subDecte" their respective superiors to the foregoing verbal abuses. The utter lac' of
respect for their superiors &as patent. In contrast, &hen petitioner &as hear" to have uttere" the allege" offensive &or"s against
respon"ent copan!=s presi"ent an" general anager, the latter &as not aroun".
Petitioner=s con"uct on *4 Deceber *++? a! be properl! consi"ere" as falling un"er either paragraph nuber 1, i.e., use of violent
language, or paragraph nuber ?, i.e., insolence or "isrespect to&ar"s a superior authorit!. -eing a first offense, the appropriate penalt!
iposable on petitioner is onl! a <verbal rein"er< an" not "isissal.
In"ee", the penalt! of "isissal is un"ul! harsh consi"ering that petitioner ha" been in the eplo! of respon"ent copan! for eleven
.**/ !ears an" it "oes not appear that he ha" a previous "erogator! recor"
Neither is his "isissal Dustifie" on groun" of loss of confi"ence. 8s a groun" for "isissal, the ter <trust an" confi"ence< is restricte"
to anagerial eplo!ees.
5*>6
Ge share the vie& of the Solicitor Heneral that petitioner is not a anagerial eplo!ee. -efore one a! be
properl! consi"ere" a anagerial eplo!ee, all the follo&ing con"itions ust be etA
The above Dob "escription "oes not ention that petitioner possesses the po&er <to la! "o&n policies nor to hire, transfer, suspen", la!
off, recall, "ischarge, assign or "iscipline eplo!ees.< 8bsent this crucial eleent, petitioner cannot be consi"ere" a anagerial
eplo!ee "espite his "esignation as District Sales Manager.
In fine, there being no Dust cause for petitioner=s "isissal, the sae is conse9uentl! unla&ful. Petitioner is thus entitle" to reinstateent
to his position as District Sales Manager, unless such position no longer e#ists, in &hich case he shall be given a substantiall! e9uivalent
position &ithout loss of seniorit! rights. 3e is li'e&ise entitle" to the pa!ent of his full bac'&ages.
Gith respect to petitioner=s other onetar! clais, ho&ever, &e agree &ith the fin"ings of the labor arbiter that he faile" to establish his
entitleent thereto.
8nent the onetar! clais of coplainant for pa!ent of the holi"a! pa! an" the cash e9uivalent of the rice
subsi"! for the perio" 8pril *++2 to Deceber *++1 visEaEvis the "ocuentar! evi"ence available on recor"s
.8nne#es <3< an" <I</ this Office is incline" to "en! sai" clais for failure of the coplainant to substantiall! an"
convincingl! prove the sae.
Ghen coplainant &as appointe" District Sales Manager effective 8pril *, *++2, his salar! &as increase" b!
P7SOSA T&o Thousan" Five 3un"re" Onl! .P1,(22.22/ .8nne# <3</ in accor"ance &ith respon"ent=s <Salar!
8"inistrative Polic!<.
8gain, effective )anuar! *, *++?, coplainant=s salar! &as increase" b! P7SOSA One Thousan" One 3un"re" Four,
so uch so that in the span of t&o .1/ !ears, coplainant=s salar! reache" the aount of T&ent! Thousan" Five
3un"re" Thirt! Si# .P12,(?0.22/ Pesos &hich len"s cre"ence to the position of the respon"ent SP% that sai" clais
for holi"a! pa! an" rice subsi"! is alrea"! integrate" in coplainant=s salar!.
51@6
labor arbiter is R7INST8T7D.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
7N -8N%

G.R. No. 79255 2a#(a'y 20, 1992
UNION O: :ILIPRO EMPLO!EES 4U:E5, petitioner,
vs.
ENIGNO >I>AR, 2R., NATIONAL LAOR RELATIONS COMMISSION a#$ NESTLB PHILIPPINES, INC. 4&o';%'.y
:ILIPRO, INC.5,
GUTIERREC, 2R., J.:
On Noveber >, *+>(, respon"ent Filipro, Inc. .no& Nestle Philippines, Inc./ file" &ith the National $abor Relations %oission
.N$R%/ a petition for "eclarator! relief see'ing a ruling on its rights an" obligations respecting clais of its onthl! pai" eplo!ees for
holi"a! pa! in the light of the %ourtOs "ecision in Chartered (an% )m$lo#ees Association v. *$le
Filipro file" a otion for clarification see'ing .*/ the liitation of the a&ar" to three !ears, .1/ the e#clusion of salesen, sales
representatives, truc' "rivers, erchan"isers an" e"ical representatives .hereinafter referre" to as sales personnel/ fro the a&ar" of
the holi"a! pa!, an" .?/ "e"uction fro the holi"a! pa! a&ar" of overpa!ent for overtie, night "ifferential, vacation an" sic' leave
benefits "ue to the use of 1(* "ivisor.
On )anuar! *@, *+>0, the respon"ent arbitrator issue" an or"er "eclaring that the effectivit! of the holi"a! pa! a&ar" shall retroact to
Noveber *, *+4@, the "ate of effectivit! of the $abor %o"e. 3e a"Du"ge", ho&ever, that the copan!Os sales personnel are fiel"
personnel an", as such, are not entitle" to holi"a! pa!. 3e li'e&ise rule" that &ith the grant of *2 "a!sO holi"a! pa!, the "ivisor shoul" be
change" fro 1(* to 10* an" or"ere" the reiburseent of overpa!ent for overtie, night "ifferential, vacation an" sic' leave pa! "ue
to the use of 1(* "a!s as "ivisor.
-oth Nestle an" CF7 file" their respective otions for partial reconsi"eration. Respon"ent 8rbitrator treate" the t&o otions as appeals
an" for&ar"e" the case to the N$R% &hich issue" a resolution "ate" Ma! 1(, *+>4 rean"ing the case to the respon"ent arbitrator on
the groun" that it has no Duris"iction to revie& "ecisions in voluntar! arbitration cases
.
3ence, this petition.
The petitioner union raises the follo&ing issuesA
*/ Ghether or not NestleOs sales personnel are entitle" to holi"a! pa!B an"
1/ Ghether or not, concoitant &ith the a&ar" of holi"a! pa!, the "ivisor shoul" be change" fro 1(* to 10* "a!s an" &hether or not
the previous use of 1(* as "ivisor resulte" in overpa!ent for overtie, night "ifferential, vacation an" sic' leave pa!.
The petitioner insists that respon"entOs sales personnel are not fiel" personnel un"er 8rticle >1 of the $abor %o"e. The respon"ent
copan! controverts this assertion.
Cn"er 8rticle >1, fiel" personnel are not entitle" to holi"a! pa!. Sai" article "efines fiel" personnel as <nonEagritultural eplo!ees &ho
regularl! perfor their "uties a&a! fro the principal place of business or branch office of the eplo!er an" &hose actual hours of &or'
in the fiel" cannot be "eterine" &ith reasonable certaint!.<
The controvers! centers on the interpretation of the clause <&hose actual hours of &or' in the fiel" cannot be "eterine" &ith reasonable
certaint!.<
The petitioner aintains that the perio" bet&een >A22 a.. to @A22 or @A?2 p.. coprises the sales personnelOs &or'ing hours &hich can
be "eterine" &ith reasonable certaint!.
The %ourt "oes not agree. The la& re9uires that the actual hours of &or' in the fiel" be reasonabl! ascertaine". The copan! has no &a!
of "eterining &hether or not these sales personnel, even if the! report to the office before >A22 a.. prior to fiel" &or' an" coe bac'
at @A?2 p., reall! spen" the hours in bet&een in actual fiel" &or'.

Moreover, the re9uireent that <actual hours of &or' in the fiel" cannot be "eterine" &ith reasonable certaint!< ust be rea" in
conDunction &ith Rule IV, -oo' III of the Ipleenting Rules &hich provi"esA
Rule IV 3oli"a!s &ith Pa!
Sec. *. %overage Q This rule shall appl! to all eplo!ees e#ceptA
### ### ###
.e/ Fiel" personnel an" other eplo!ees +hose time and $er&ormance is unsu$ervised b# the em$lo#er . . .
.7phasis supplie"/
Ghile conten"ing that such rule a""e" another eleent not foun" in the la& ."ollo, p. *?/, the petitioner nevertheless attepte" to sho&
that its affecte" ebers are not covere" b! the aboveentione" rule. The petitioner asserts that the copan!Os sales personnel are
strictl! supervise" as sho&n b! the SOD .Supervisor of the Da!/ sche"ule an" the copan! circular "ate" March *(, *+>@ .8nne#es 1
an" ?, "ollo, pp. (?E((/.
%ontrar! to the contention of the petitioner, the %ourt fin"s that the aforeentione" rule "i" not a"" another eleent to the $abor %o"e
"efinition of fiel" personnel. The clause <&hose tie an" perforance is unsupervise" b! the eplo!er< "i" not aplif! but erel!
interprete" an" e#poun"e" the clause <&hose actual hours of &or' in the fiel" cannot be "eterine" &ith reasonable certaint!.< The
forer clause is still &ithin the scope an" purvie& of 8rticle >1 &hich "efines fiel" personnel. 3ence, in "eci"ing &hether or not an
eplo!eeOs actual &or'ing hours in the fiel" can be "eterine" &ith reasonable certaint!, 9uer! ust be a"e as to &hether or not such
eplo!eeOs tie an" perforance is constantl! supervise" b! the eplo!er.
The SOD sche"ule a"verte" to b! the petitioner "oes not in the least signif! that these sales personnelOs tie an" perforance are
supervise". The purpose of this sche"ule is erel! to ensure that the sales personnel are out of the office not later than >A22 a.. an" are
bac' in the office not earlier than @A22 p..
$i'e&ise, the %ourt fails to see ho& the copan! can onitor the nuber of actual hours spent in fiel" &or' b! an eplo!ee through the
iposition of sanctions on absenteeis containe" in the copan! circular of March *(, *+>@.
The petitioner clais that the fact that these sales personnel are given incentive bonus ever! 9uarter base" on their perforance is proof
that their actual hours of &or' in the fiel" can be "eterine" &ith reasonable certaint!.
The %ourt thin's other&ise.
The criteria for granting incentive bonus areA .*/ attaining or e#cee"ing sales volue base" on sales targetB .1/ goo" collection
perforanceB .?/ proper copliance &ith goo" ar'et h!gieneB .@/ goo" erchan"ising &or'B .(/ inial ar'et returnsB an" .0/
proper truc' aintenance.
The above criteria in"icate that these sales personnel are given incentive bonuses precisel! because of the "ifficult! in easuring their
actual hours of fiel" &or'. These eplo!ees are evaluate" b! the result of their &or' an" not b! the actual hours of fiel" &or' &hich are
har"l! susceptible to "eterination.
In San ,iguel (re+er#, -nc. v. Democratic !abor *rganization .> S%R8 0*? 5*+0?6/, the %ourt ha" occasion to "iscuss the nature of the
Dob of a salesan. %iting the case of Je+el .ea Co. v. /illiams, %.%.8. O'la., **> F. 1" 121, the %ourt state"A
The reasons for e#clu"ing an outsi"e salesan are fairl! apparent. Such a salesan, to a greater e#tent, &or's
in"ivi"uall!. There are no restrictions respecting the tie he shall &or' an" he can earn as uch or as little, &ithin
the range of his abilit!, as his abition "ictates. In lieu of overtie he or"inaril! receives coissions as e#tra
copensation. 3e &or's a&a! fro his eplo!erOs place of business, is not subDect to the personal supervision of
his eplo!er, an" his eplo!er has no &a! of 'no&ing the nuber of hours he &or's per "a!.
Ghile in that case the issue &as &hether or not salesen &ere entitle" to overtie pa!, the sae rationale for their e#clusion as fiel"
personnel fro holi"a! pa! benefits also applies.
The petitioner union also assails the respon"ent arbitratorOs ruling that, concoitant &ith the a&ar" of holi"a! pa!, the "ivisor shoul" be
change" fro 1(* to 10* "a!s to inclu"e the a""itional *2 holi"a!s an" the eplo!ees shoul" reiburse the aounts overpai" b! Filipro
"ue to the use of 1(* "a!sO "ivisor.
Nestle insists that the rec'oning perio" for the application of the holi"a! pa! a&ar" is *+>( &hen the Chartered (an% "ecision,
proulgate" on 8ugust 1>, *+>(, becae final an" e#ecutor!, an" not fro the "ate of effectivit! of the $abor %o"e. 8lthough the %ourt
"oes not entirel! agree &ith Nestle, &e fin" its clai eritorious.
In -nsular (an% o& Asia and America )m$lo#ees0 1nion (-(AA)1) v. -nciong, *?1 S%R8 00? 5*+>@6, hereinafter referre" to as the I-88
case, the %ourt "eclare" that Section 1, Rule IV, -oo' III of the ipleenting rules an" Polic! Instruction No. +, issue" b! the then
Secretar! of $abor on Februar! *0, *+40 an" 8pril 1?, *+40, respectivel!, an" &hich e#clu"e" onthl! pai" eplo!ees fro holi"a!
pa! benefits, are null an" voi". The %ourt therein reasone" that, in the guise of clarif!ing the $abor %o"eOs provisions on holi"a! pa!, the
aforeentione" ipleenting rule an" polic! instruction aen"e" the b! enlarging the scope of their e#clusion. The Chartered
(an% case reiterate" the above ruling an" a""e" the <"ivisor< test.
3o&ever, prior to their being "eclare" null an" voi", the ipleenting rule an" polic! instruction enDo!e" the presuption of vali"it!
an" hence, NestleOs nonEpa!ent of the holi"a! benefit up to the proulgation of the I-88 case on October 1?, *+>@ &as in copliance
&ith these presuabl! vali" rule an" polic! instruction.
.
The %ourt thereb! resolves that the grant of holi"a! pa! be effective, not fro the "ate of proulgation of the %hartere" -an' case nor
fro the "ate of effectivit! of the $abor %o"e, but fro October 1?, *+>@, the "ate of proulgation of the I-88 case.
G37R7FOR7, the or"er of the voluntar! arbitrator in hereb! MODIFI7D. The "ivisor to be use" in coputing holi"a! pa! shall be 1(*
"a!s. The holi"a! pa! as above "irecte" shall be copute" fro October 1?, *+>@. In all other respects, the or"er of the respon"ent
arbitrator is hereb! 8FFIRM7D.
FIRST DIVISION
@G.R. No. 109210. A3'*. 17, 1996A
ENGINEER LEONCIO >. SALACAR, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LAOR RELATIONS COMMISSION 42#$ D*,*)*o#5 a#$ H.
L. CARLOS CONSTRUCTION, CO. INC., respondents.
nstant $etition &or revie+ shall be treated as a s$ecial civil action on certiorari.
AND SOCIAL LEGISLATIOND LAOR CODED CONDITION O: EMPLO!MENTD MEMERS O: THE MANAGERIAL
STA:: NOT ENTITLED TO O>ERTIME, REST DA! AND HOLIDA! PA!. E In his original coplaint, petitioner state"
that the nature of his &or' is Isupervisor!Eengineering.J Siilarl!, in his o&n petition an" in other plea"ings subitte" to this
%ourt, petitioner confire" that his Dob &as to supervise the laborers in the construction proDect. 3ence, although petitioner cannot
strictl! be classifie" as a anagerial eplo!ee un"er 8rt. >1 of the $abor %o"e, an" Sec. 1.b/,Rule *, -oo' III of the Onibus
Rules Ipleenting the $abor %o"e, nonetheless he is still not entitle" to pa!ent of the aforestate" benefits because he falls
s9uarel! un"er another e#ept categor! E Iofficers or ebers of a anagerial staffJ as "efine" un"er Sec. 1.c/ of the
aboveentione" ipleenting rules. 8 case in point is ational Sugar "e&ineries Cor$oration v. !"C. On the issue of I&hether
supervisor! eplo!ees, as "efine" in 8rticle 1*1 ./, -oo' V of the $abor %o"e, shoul" be consi"ere" as officers or ebers of
the anagerial staff un"er 8rticle >1, -oo' III of the sae %o"e an" hence not entitle" to overtie, rest "a! an" holi"a! pa!,J this
%ourt rule"A 8 cursor! perusal of the )ob Value %ontribution Stateents of the union ebers &ill rea"il! sho& that these
supervisor! eplo!ees are un"er the "irect supervision of their respective "epartent superinten"ents an" that generall! the!
assist the latter in planning, organi;ing, staffing, "irecting, controlling, counicating an" in a'ing "ecisions in attaining the
copan!=s set goals an" obDectives. These supervisor! eplo!ees are li'e&ise responsible for the effective an" efficient operation
of their respective "epartents. # # # Fro the foregoing, it is apparent that the ebers of respon"ent union "ischarge "uties an"
responsibilities &hich ineluctabl! 9ualif! the as officers or ebers of the anagerial staff, as "efine" in Section 1, Rule *,
-oo' III of the aforestate" Rules to Ipleent the $abor %o"e, viz.2 .*/ their priar! "ut! consists of the perforance of &or'
"irectl! relate" to anageent policies of their eplo!erB .1/ the! custoaril! an" regularl! e#ercise "iscretion an" in"epen"ent
Du"gentB .?/ the! regularl! an" "irectl! assist the anagerial eplo!ee &hose priar! "ut! consists of the anageent of a
"epartent of the establishent in &hich the! are eplo!e"B .@/ the! e#ecute, un"er general supervision, &or' along speciali;e"
or technical lines re9uiring special training, e#perience, or 'no&le"geB .(/ the! e#ecute, un"er general supervision, special
assignents an" tas'sB an" .0/ the! "o not "evote ore than 12F of their hours &or'e" in a &or'E&ee' to activities &hich are not
"irectl! an" clearl! relate" to the perforance of their &or' hereinbefore "escribe". Cn"er the facts obtaining in this case, &e are
constraine" to agree &ith petitioner that the union ebers shoul" be consi"ere" as officers or ebers of the anagerial staff
an" are, therefore, e#ept fro the coverage of 8rticle >1. Perforce, the! are not entitle" to overtie, rest "a! an" holi"a! pa!.
.
D E C I S I O N
private respon"ent, at a onthl! salar! of P@,(22.22, eplo!e" petitioner as construction:proDect engineer for the construction of
the Monte "e Pie"a" buil"ing in %ubao, Rue;on %it!. 8llege"l!, b! virtue of an oral contract, petitioner &oul" also receive a share in the
profits after copletion of the proDect an" that petitioner=s services in e#cess of eight .>/ hours on regular "a!s an" services ren"ere" on
&ee'en"s an" legal holi"a!s shall be copensable overtie at the rate of P14.>( per hour.
petitioner receive" a eoran"u issue" b! private respon"ent=s proDect anager, 7ngr. Nestor 8. Delantar inforing hi of the
terination of his services effective on ?2 8pril *++*
petitioner file" a coplaint against private respon"ent for illegal "isissal, unfair labor practice, illegal "e"uction, nonEpa!ent of
&ages, overtie ren"ere", service incentive leave pa!, coission, allo&ances, profitEsharing an" separation pa! &ith the N$R%EN%R
8rbitration -ranch, Manila.
1
The $abor 8rbiter rule" that petitioner &as a anagerial eplo!ee an" therefore e#ept fro pa!ent of benefits such as
overtie pa!, service incentive leave pa! an" preiu pa! for holi"a!s an" rest "a!s. Petitioner, $abor 8rbiter 89uino further "eclare",
&as also not entitle" to separation pa!. 3e &as hire" as a proDect eplo!ee an" his services &ere terinate" "ue to the copletion of the
proDect.
@
The $abor 8rbiter, li'e&ise, "enie" petitioner=s clai for a share in the proDect=s profits, reiburseent of legal e#penses an"
unpai" &ages for lac' of basis.
(
On *@ 8pril *++1, petitioner appeale" to the National $abor Relations %oission .N$R%/.
On 14 Noveber *++1, the N$R% ren"ere" the assaile" "ecision
the appeal is hereb! Disisse" an" the assaile" "ecision is 8ffire" in toto.
petitioner file" a otion for reconsi"eration &hich the N$R% "enie" for lac' of erit on 11 Februar! *++?.
4
3ence, the instant petition &herein the follo&ing issues &ere raise"A
I. Hranting for the sa'e of arguent &ithout conce"ing, that coplainantEpetitioner herein &as a anagerial eplo!ee, &as his
verbal contract to be pai" his overtie services as state" in paragraph 1.b/ of this Petition invali"S an" the pa!ents of such overtie
services as evi"ence" b! 7#hibits I-J to I-E1@J .the genuineness an" authenticit! of &hich are not "ispute"/ are the! not evi"entiar!
an" of corroborative value to the true un&ritten agreeent bet&een the parties in this caseS
II. Is there an! portion of the $abor %o"e that prohibits contracts bet&een eplo!er an" eplo!ee giving the latter the benefit of
being pai" overtie services, as in this particular caseS
Petitioner pra!s that Du"gent be ren"ere", thusA
*. That the "ecision of the N$R% an" its resolution "en!ing the Motion for Reconsi"eration be set asi"e on groun"s of grave abuse of
"iscretion an"B
1. That private respon"ent be or"ere" to pa! petitioner the follo&ingA
a. the preiu pa!s for his overtie services of ?0> hours on or"inar! "a!s at 3456 141 hours on Satur"a!s at ?2FB 141 hours on
Sun"a!s plus 1@ hours on legal holi"a!s at 122F Ecopute" at the rate of P14.>( per hour of un"istorte" &age levelB
b. in the alternative, to pa! at least one .*/ percent of 7.4 illion pesos profit share, or the su total of the "ifferential of his salaries, in
the aount of P1,*>@.22 per onth, since 8pril *4,*++2 to 8pril ?2,*++*, his un"istorte" salar! being P0,0>@.22 per onthB an" to pa!
his unpai" salar! for *( "a!s E Ma! * to *(, *++*, &ith his un"istorte" salar! rateB
c. the aount of P?,222.22 reiburseent for &hat he pai" his "efense counsel in that criinal action &hich shoul" have instea" been
against respon"ent=s general anagerB
". Separation pa! of at least one onth salar!, he having been terinate" unreasonabl! &ithout cause, an" three "a!s service incentive
leave pa!B an" to pa! the costsB
+
On the first issue, the N$R% concurre" &ith the $abor 8rbiter=s ruling that petitioner &as a anagerial eplo!ee an", therefore,
e#ept fro pa!ent of overtie pa!, preiu pa! for holi"a!s an" rest "a!s an" service incentive leave pa! un"er the la&. The
N$R% "eclare" thatA
-oo' III on con"itions of eplo!ent e#epts anagerial eplo!ees fro its coverage on the grant of certain econoic benefits,
&hich are the ones the coplainantEappellant &as "ean"ing fro respon"ent. It is an un"ispute" fact that appellant &as a anagerial
eplo!ee an" such, he &as not entitle" to the econoic benefits he sought to recover.
*1
Petitioner clais that since he perfors his "uties in the proDect site or a&a! fro the principal place of business of his eplo!er
.herein private respon"ent/, he falls un"er the categor! of Ifiel" personnel.J 3o&ever, petitioner accentuates that his case constitutes the
e#ception to the e#ception because his actual &or'ing hours can be "eterine" as evi"ence" b! the "isburseent vouchers containing
pa!ents of petitioner=s salaries an" overtie services.
*?
Strangel!, petitioner is of the vie& that fiel" personnel a! inclu"e anagerial
eplo!ees.
Ge are constraine" to "isagree &ith petitioner.
In his original coplaint, petitioner state" that the nature of his &or' is Jsupervisor!Eengineering.J
*@
Siilarl!, in his o&n petition
an" in other plea"ings subitte" to this %ourt, petitioner confire" that his Dob &as to supervise the laborers in the construction
proDect.
*(
3ence, although petitioner cannot strictl! be classifie" as a anagerial eplo!ee un"er 8rt. >1 of the $abor %o"e,
*0
an" Sec.
1.b/, Rule *, -oo' III of the Onibus Rules Ipleenting the $abor %o"e,
*4
nonetheless he is still not entitle" to pa!ent of the
aforestate" benefits because he falls s9uarel! un"er another e#ept categor! E Iofficers or ebers of a anagerial staffJ as "efine"
un"er Sec. 1.c/ of the aboveentione" ipleenting rulesA
Sec. 1. )8em$tion. E The provisions of this Rule shall not appl! to the follo&ing persons if the! 9ualif! for e#eption un"er the
con"ition set forth hereinA
### ### ###
.c/ Officers or ebers of a anagerial staff if the! perfor the follo&ing "uties an" responsibilitiesA
.*/ The priar! "ut! consists of the perforance of &or' "irectl! relate" to anageent policies of their eplo!erB
.1/ %ustoaril! an" regularl! e#ercise "iscretion an" in"epen"ent Du"gentB
.?/ Regularl! an" "irectl! assist a proprietor or a anagerial eplo!ee &hose priar! "ut! consists of the anageent of the
establishent in &hich he is eplo!e" or sub"ivision thereofB or 5ii6 e#ecute un"er general supervision &or' along speciali;e" or
technical lines re9uiring special training, e#perience, or 'no&le"geB or 5iii6 e#ecute un"er general supervision special assignents an"
tas'sB an"
.@/ &ho "o not "evote ore than 12 percent of their hours &or'e" in a &or'E&ee' to activities &hich are not "irectl! an" closel!
relate" to the perforance of the &or' "escribe" in paragraphs .*/, .1/, an" .?/ above.
. # # #

Fro the foregoing, it is apparent that the ebers of respon"ent union "ischarge "uties an" responsibilities &hich ineluctabl! 9ualif!
the as officers or ebers of the anagerial staff, as "efine" in Section 1, Rule *, -oo' III of the aforestate" Rules to Ipleent the
$abor %o"e, viz.2 .*/ their priar! "ut! consists of the perforance of &or' "irectl! relate" to anageent policies of their eplo!erB
.1/ the! custoaril! an" regularl! e#ercise "iscretion an" in"epen"ent Du"gentB .?/ the! regularl! an" "irectl! assist the anagerial
eplo!ee &hose priar! "ut! consists of the anageent of a "epartent of the establishent in &hich the! areEeplo!e"B .@/ the!
e#ecute, un"er general supervision, &or' along speciali;e" or technical lines re9uiring special training, e#perience, or
'no&le"geB (4) the! e#ecute, un"er general supervision, special assignents an" tas'sB an" .0/ the! "o not "evote ore than 12F of
their hours &or'e" in a &or'E&ee' to activities &hich are not "irectl! an" clearl! relate" to the perforance of their &or'
hereinbefore "escribe".
Cn"er the facts obtaining in this case, &e are constraine" to agree &ith petitioner that the union ebers shoul" be consi"ere" as
officers or ebers of the anagerial staff an" are, therefore, e#ept fro the coverage of 8rticle >1. Perforce, the! are not entitle" to
overtie, rest "a! an" holi"a! pa!.
12
The afore9uote" rationale e9uall! applies to petitioner herein consi"ering in the ain his supervisor! "uties as privateE
respon"ent=s proDect engineer, "uties &hich, it is significant to note, petitioner "oes not "ispute.
Petitioner, li'e&ise, clais that the N$R% faile" to give "ue &eight an" consi"eration to the fact that private respon"ent
copensate" hi for his overtie services as in"icate" in the various "isburseent vouchers he subitte" as evi"ence.
Petitioner=s contention is uneritorious. That petitioner &as pai" overtie benefits "oes not autoaticall! an" necessaril! "enote
that petitioner is entitled to such benefits. 8rt. >1 of the $abor %o"e specificall! "elineates &ho are entitle" to the overtie preius
an" service incentive leave pa! provi"e" un"er 8rt. >4, +?, +@ an" +( of the $abor %o"e an" the e#eptions thereto. 8s previousl!
"eterine", petitioner falls un"er the e#eptions an" therefore has no legal clai to the sai" benefits. It is &ell an" goo" that petitioner
&as copensate" for his overtie services. 3o&ever, this "oes not translate into a right on the part of petitioner to "ean" a""itional
pa!ent &hen, un"er the la&, petitioner is clearl! e#epte" therefro.
Thus, &e concur &ith the ruling of the $abor 8rbiterA
8s to the issue of profit sharing, &e sipl! cannot grant the sae on the ere basis of coplainant=s allegation that respon"ent verball!
proise" hi that he is entitle" to a share in the profits "erive."/ fro the proDects. -enefits or privileges of this nature .are/ usuall! in
&riting, besi"es coplainant faile" to .establish/ that sai" benefits or privileges .have/ been given to an! of respon"ent.Ns/ eplo!ees as
a atter of practice or polic!.
1*
.Gor"s in parenthesis supplie"./
On the last issue, &e rule that petitioner is a proDect eplo!ee an", therefore, not entitle" to separation pa!.
The applicable provision is 8rticle 1>2 of the $abor %o"e &hich "efines the ter IproDect eplo!ee,J thusA
8RT. 1>2. Regular an" %asual 7plo!ent. E The provisions of &ritten agreeent to the contrar! not&ithstan"ing an" regar"less of the
oral agreeent of the parties, an eplo!ent shall be "eee" to be regular &here the eplo!ee has been engage" to perfor activities
&hich are usuall! necessar! or "esirable in the usual business or tra"e of the eplo!er, e8ce$t +here the em$lo#ment has been &i8ed &or a
s$eci&ic $ro9ect or underta%ing the com$letion or termination o& +hich has been determined at the time o& the engagement o& the
em$lo#ee or &here the &or' or services to be perfore" is seasonal in nature an" the eplo!ent is for the "uration of the season.
.Italics ours./
1(
In the case at bench, it &as "ul! establishe" that private respon"ent hire" petitioner as proDect or construction engineer specificall!
for its Monte "e Pie"a" buil"ing proDect. In his o&n &or"s, petitioner "eclare"A
### ### ###.
1. That coplainantEpetitioner herein, b! virtue of an oral agreeent entere" into &ith private respon"ent herein through its proprietor,
presi"ent an" general anager, 7ngr. 3onorio $. %arlos, on 8pril *4, *++2, began to +or% as a dul# licensed Civil )ngineer as
construction or $ro9ect engineer o& its contracted $ro9ect, the ,onte de Piedad (an% (uilding, at Cubao, :uezon Cit#, on the follo&ing
ters an" con"itions, to &itA
# # #. .Italics ours./
10
8ccor"ingl!, as proDect eplo!ee, petitioner=s services are "eee" coEterinous &ith the proDect, that is, petitioner=s services a!
be terinate" as soon as the proDect for &hich he &as hire" is coplete".
14
There can be no "ispute that petitioner=s "isissal &as "ue to the copletion of the construction of the Monte "e Pie"a" buil"ing.
Petitioner hiself state" that it too' hi an" his assisting laborers until *( Ma! *++* to coplete the Ifinishing touchesJ on the sai"
buil"ing.
1>
Petitioner, thus, has no legal right to "ean" separation pa!.
1+
Polic! Instruction No. 12 entitle" IStabili;ing 7plo!erE7plo!ee
Relations in the %onstruction In"ustr!J e#plicitl! an"ates thatA
### ### ###
ProDect eplo!ees are not entitle" to terination pa! if the! are terinate" as a result of the copletion of the proDect or an! phase
thereof in &hich the! are eplo!e", regar"less of the nuber of proDects in &hich the! have been eplo!e" b! a particular construction
copan!. Moreover, the copan! is not re9uire" to obtain a clearance fro the Secretar! of $abor in connection &ith such terination.
Ghat is re9uire" of the copan! is a report to the nearest Public 7plo!ent Office for statistical purposes.
"HERE:ORE, preises consi"ere", the assaile" "ecision is hereb! MODIFI7D as follo&sA
*/ Private respon"ent is or"ere" to pa! petitioner for services ren"ere" fro * Ma! to *( Ma! *++*B an",
1/ PrivateErespon"ent is or"ere" to reiburse petitioner=s legal e#penses in the aount of P?,222.22.
In all other respects, the ipugne" "ecision is hereb! 8FFIRM7D.
@G.R. No. 11257/. O<+o=%' 7, 1997A
MERCIDAR :ISHING CORPORATION '%3'%)%#+%$ =y *+) P'%)*$%#+ DOMINGO . NA>AL, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL
LAOR RELATIONS COMMISSION a#$ :ERMIN AGAO, 2R., respondents.
This case originate" fro a coplaint file" on Septeber 12, *++2 b! private respon"ent Ferin 8gao, )r. against petitioner for
illegal "isissal, violation of P.D. No. >(*, an" nonEpa!ent of five "a!s service incentive leave for *++2. Private respon"ent ha" been
eplo!e" as a Ibo"egeroJ or ship=s 9uarteraster on Februar! *1, *+>>. 3e coplaine" that he ha" been constructivel! "isisse" b!
petitioner &hen the latter refuse" hi assignents aboar" its boats after he ha" reporte" to &or' on Ma! 1>, *++2.
5*6
Private respon"ent allege" that he ha" been sic' an" thus allo&e" to go on leave &ithout pa! for one onth fro 8pril 1>, *++2
but that &hen he reporte" to &or' at the en" of such perio" &ith a health clearance, he &as tol" to coe bac' another tie as he coul"
not be reinstate" ie"iatel!. Thereafter, petitioner refuse" to give hi &or'. , petitioner refuse" to issue the certificate unless he
subitte" his resignation. Since private respon"ent refuse" to subit such letter unless he &as given separation pa!, petitioner prevente"
hi fro entering the preises.
Respon"ent faile" to report for &or' after his leave ha" e#pire" an" &as, in fact, absent &ithout leave for three onths until
8ugust 1>, *++>. Petitioner further clais that, nonetheless, it assigne" private respon"ent to another vessel, but the latter &as left
behin" on Septeber *, *++2. Thereafter, private respon"ent as'e" for a certificate of eplo!ent on Septeber 0 on the prete#t that he
&as appl!ing to another fishing copan!. On Septeber *2, *++2, he refuse" to get the certificate an" resign unless he &as given
separation pa!.
5?6
On Februar! *>, *++1, $abor 8rbiter 8rthur $. 8ansec ren"ere" a "ecision
, respon"ents are or"ere" to reinstate coplainant &ith bac'&ages, pa! hi his *?th onth pa! an" incentive leave pa! for
*++2.
8ll other clais are "isisse".
The N$R% "isisse" petitioner=s clai that it cannot be hel" liable for service incentive leave pa! b! fisheren in its eplo! as
the latter suppose"l! are Ifiel" personnelJ an" thus not entitle" to such pa! un"er the $abor %o"e.
5@6
The N$R% li'e&ise "enie" petitioner=s otion for reconsi"eration of its "ecision in its or"er "ate" October 1(, *++?.
3ence, this petition. Petitioner conten"sA
I
T37 R7SPOND7NT %OMMISSION P8$P8-$L 7RR7D IN RC$INH 8ND SCST8ININH T37 VI7G T38T FIS3INH %R7G
M7M-7RS, $IT7 F7RMIN 8H8O, )R., %8NNOT -7 %$8SSIFI7D 8S FI7$D P7RSONN7$ CND7R 8RTI%$7 >1 OF T37
$8-OR %OD7.
The petition has no erit.
8rt. >1 of the $abor %o"e provi"esA
8RT. >1. Coverage. E The provisions of this Title 5Gor'ing %on"itions an" Rest Perio"s6 shall appl! to eplo!ees in all
establishents an" un"erta'ings &hether for profit or not, but not to governent eplo!ees, fiel" personnel, ebers of
the fail! of the eplo!er &ho are "epen"ent on hi for support, "oestic helpers, persons in the personal service of
another, an" &or'ers &ho are pai" b! results as "eterine" b! the Secretar! of $abor in appropriate regulations.
. . . . . . . . . .
IFiel" personnelJ shall refer to nonEagricultural eplo!ees &ho regularl! perfor their "uties a&a! fro the principal
place of business or branch office of the eplo!er an" &hose actual hours of &or' in the fiel" cannot be "eterine" &ith
reasonable certaint!.
Petitioner argues essentiall! that since the &or' of private respon"ent is perfore" a&a! fro its principal place of business, it has
no &a! of verif!ing his actual hours of &or' on the vessel. It conten"s that private respon"ent an" other fisheren in its eplo! shoul"
be classifie" as Ifiel" personnelJ &ho have no statutor! right to service incentive leave pa!.
In the case of 1nion o& ;ili$ro )m$lo#ees (1;)) v. <icar,
5(6
this %ourt e#plaine" the eaning of the phrase I&hose actual hours of
&or' in the fiel" cannot be "eterine" &ith reasonable certaint!J in 8rt. >1 of the $abor %o"e, as follo&sA
Moreover, the re9uireent that Iactual hours of &or' in the fiel" cannot be "eterine" &ith reasonable certaint!J ust be
rea" in conDunction &ith Rule IV, -oo' III of the Ipleenting Rules &hich provi"esA
Rule IV 3oli"a!s &ith Pa!
Section *. %overage E This rule shall appl! to all eplo!ees e#ceptA
. . . . . . . . . .
.e/ Fiel" personnel an" other eplo!ees +hose time an" $er&ormance is unsu$ervised b# the em$lo#er ###
.Italics supplie"/
Ghile conten"ing that such rule a""e" another eleent not foun" in the la& . "ollo, p. *?/, the petitioner nevertheless
attepte" to sho& that its affecte" ebers are not covere" b! the aboveentione" rule. The petitioner asserts that the
copan!=s sales personnel are strictl! supervise" as sho&n b! the SOD .Supervisor of the Da!/ sche"ule an" the copan!
circular "ate" March *(, *+>@ .8nne#es 1 an" ?, "ollo, pp. (?E((/.
%ontrar! to the contention of the petitioner, the %ourt fin"s that the aforeentione" rule "i" not a"" another eleent to the
$abor %o"e "efinition of fiel" personnel. The clause I&hose tie an" perforance is unsupervise" b! the eplo!erJ "i"
not aplif! but erel! interprete" an" e#poun"e" the clause I&hose actual hours of &or' in the fiel" cannot be "eterine"
&ith reasonable certaint!.J The forer clause is still &ithin the scope an" purvie& of 8rticle >1 &hich "efines fiel"
personnel. 3ence, in "eci"ing &hether or not an eplo!ee=s actual &or'ing hours in the fiel" can be "eterine" &ith
reasonable certaint!, 9uer! ust be a"e as to &hether or not such eplo!ee=s tie an" perforance is constantl!
supervise" b! the eplo!er.
506
8ccor"ingl!, it &as hel" in the aforeentione" case that salesen of Nestle Philippines, Inc. &ere fiel" personnelA
It is un"ispute" that these sales personnel start their fiel" &or' at >A22 a.. after having reporte" to the office an" coe
bac' to the office at @A22 p.. or @A?2 p.. if the! are Ma'atiEbase".
The petitioner aintains that the perio" bet&een >A22 a.. to @A22 or @A?2 p.. coprises the sales personnel=s &or'ing
hours &hich can be "eterine" &ith reasonable certaint!.
The %ourt "oes not agree. The la& re9uires that the actual hours of &or' in the fiel" be reasonabl! ascertaine". The
copan! has no &a! of "eterining &hether or not these sales personnel, even if the! report to the office before >A22 a..
prior to fiel" &or' an" coe bac' at @A?2 p.., reall! spen" the hours in bet&een in actual fiel" &or'.
546
In contrast, in the case at bar, "uring the entire course of their fishing vo!age, fisheren eplo!e" b! petitioner have no choice
but to reain on boar" its vessel. 8lthough the! perfor nonEagricultural &or' a&a! fro petitioner=s business offices, the fact reains
that throughout the "uration of their &or' the! are un"er the effective control an" supervision of petitioner through the vessel=s patron or
aster as the N$R% correctl! hel".
5>6
Neither "i" petitioner gravel! abuse its "iscretion in ruling that private respon"ent ha" constructivel! been "isisse" b!
petitioner. Such factual fin"ing of both the N$R% an" the $abor 8rbiter is base" not onl! on the plea"ings of the parties but also on a
e"ical certificate of fitness &hich, contrar! to petitioner=s clai, private respon"ent presente" &hen he reporte" to &or' on Ma! 1>,
*++2.
5+6
8s the N$R% hel"A
8nent groun"s .a/ an" .b/ of the appeal, the respon"ent, in a nutshell, &oul" li'e us to believe that the 8rbiter abuse" his
"iscretion .or seriousl! erre" in his fin"ings of facts/ in giving cre"ence to the factual version of the coplainant. -ut it is
settle" that I.G/hen confronte" &ith conflicting versions of factual atters,J the $abor 8rbiter has the I"iscretion to
"eterine &hich part! "eserves cre"ence on the basis of evi"ence receive".J 5Helart In"ustries .Phils./, Inc. vs. $eogar"o,
*(( S%R8 @2?, @2+, $E42(@@, Noveber (, *+>46. 8n" besi"es, it is settle" in this Duris"iction that Ito constitute
aban"onent of position, there ust be concurrence of the intention to aban"on an" soe overt acts fro &hich it a! be
inferre" that the eplo!ee concerne" has no ore interest in &or'ingJ .Dagupan -us %o., Inc. vs. N$R%, *+* S%R8 ?1>/,
an" that the filing of the coplaint &hich as'e" for reinstateent plus bac'&ages .Recor", p. 12/ is inconsistent &ith
respon"ents= "efense of aban"onent .3ua -ee Shirt Factor! vs. N$R%, *>> S%R8 (>0/.
5*26
It is trite to sa! that the factual fin"ings of 9uasiEDu"icial bo"ies are generall! bin"ing as long as the! are supporte" substantiall! b!
evi"ence in the recor" of the case.
5**6
This is especiall! so &here, as here, the agenc! an" its subor"inate &ho hear" the case in the first
instance are in full agreeent as to the facts.
5*16
8s regar"s the labor arbiter=s a&ar" &hich &as affire" b! respon"ent N$R%, there is no reason to appl! the rule that
reinstateent a! not be or"ere" if, as a result of the case bet&een the parties, their relation is straine".
5*?6
7ven at this late stage of this
"ispute, petitioner continues to reiterate its offer to reinstate private respon"ent.
5*@6
"HERE:ORE, the petition is DISMISS7D.